& cplSiteName &

Comcast's Cohen: Define Internet Fast Lanes

Mari Silbey
5/14/2014
50%
50%

Comcast Executive Vice President David Cohen is certainly earning his pay these days.

Taking advantage of another forum to state his company's case on the open Internet debate, Cohen spoke at the inaugural MoffettNathanson Media & Communications Summit Wednesday morning. Covering issues that included paid prioritization, the interconnection market, usage-based billing, and market consolidation, Cohen made it clear that Comcast Corp. (Nasdaq: CMCSA, CMCSK) believes it is not only following the legal guidelines imposed by US regulators, but also the principles of the government's open Internet policy.

Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Tom Wheeler provoked an immediate and largely negative reaction last month when he proposed letting broadband providers create network "fast lanes" for bandwidth-hogging Internet video companies such as Netflix Inc. (Nasdaq: NFLX). But Cohen cautioned that the definition of a fast lane hasn't even been determined yet. (See Edgewater Reanimated by $5M for SDN/NFV.)

"We are not sure we know what paid prioritization, or what a fast lane is. No one's defined that," he said in this morning's conversation with telecom analyst Craig Moffett.

Moffett then clarified that Comcast's current commitment -- under the conditions that it accepted in exchange for approval of its acquisition of NBC Universal -- doesn't take paid prioritization into account at all. Cohen agreed. "Whatever it is," he said, "we're allowed to do it."

While Cohen was definitive about following the letter of the law, he was also careful to emphasize that Comcast isn't trying to get away with anything that goes against the spirit of the open Internet. He pointed out that even if strict Title II regulations were imposed on the broadband market, there would still be nothing to prohibit operators from providing different levels of service to different types of customers, just as they currently do when differentiating between business and residential subscribers. The premise of offering different types of service, in Cohen's view, doesn't violate the open Internet doctrine.

Speculating on Wheeler's upcoming Internet regulatory rulings, Cohen also guessed that the chairman would ultimately decide that paid prioritization deals have to be determined on a case-by-case basis, with "commercially unreasonable" agreements being deemed unlawful under regulatory review.

Neither Moffett nor Cohen spoke in detail about the current battle between Internet service providers and transit providers such as Level 3 Communications Inc. (NYSE: LVLT) and Cogent Communications Holdings Inc. (Nasdaq: CCOI). Transit providers have argued that some ISPs are deliberately allowing peering points to degrade to force transit partners to pay for better service. However, Cohen did say that he believes the cost of transport should be proportionate to actual usage. He added that the right way to manage overall costs is to move to a usage-based billing model for consumers.

Comcast is currently running tests of usage-based billing in several markets, including a pilot in Atlanta that was started late last year. Cohen said that so far the Atlanta trial has had no effect on about 98% of customers. He also argued that if the model is adopted universally in the future, he believes the same trend would hold true, with very few subscribers needing to pay monthly overage fees for exceeding a capacity threshold.

The entire conversation at the MoffettNathanson event comes within the context of both Comcast's proposed acquisition of Time Warner Cable Inc. (NYSE: TWC), and the FCC's plan to consider a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on the subject of open Internet regulations. (See FCC's Wheeler: 'Internet Will Remain an Open Pathway' and In Cable We (Anti)trust.)

Although the rhetoric level is high, there are significant issues being hashed out within the public sphere. The debate continues tomorrow at the next FCC Open Commission Meeting.

— Mari Silbey, special to Light Reading

(5)  | 
Comment  | 
Print  | 
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View        ADD A COMMENT
ITProjec39942
50%
50%
ITProjec39942,
User Rank: Lightning
10/10/2016 | 1:07:30 AM
no effect on about 98% of customers
"Cohen said that so far the Atlanta trial has had no effect on about 98% of customers. He also argued that if the model is adopted universally in the future, he believes the same trend would hold true, with very few subscribers needing to pay monthly overage fees for exceeding a capacity threshold."

That would entirely depend on Comcast adjusting its caps to scale with usage demand, though. And since the entire purpose of imposing these caps and meters is to protect TV revenues from Internet video, I have an aching suspicion that won't be happening.
I disagree with your entire premise. Verizon is paying its bandung content providers to provide content jogja on its FiOS TV network. I am assuming SBC will pay its content providers to provide video over Lightspeed.

Google is not a content provider, but semarang more of a content aggregator. A way of finding actual content. The Google Business bekasi model is to be paid by content providers to be found through Google.

Example, you can "google" Light Reading bogor and find this site. But Light Reading is the content and not Google.

From that cikarang standpoint, the RBOC argument over QoS and making people pay for access to their customers is really a way to charge cirebon their customers more money. As at the jakarta end of the day businesses would pay Google more for karawang ads and in turn charge their customers more. If a click-fraud application comes around in that time, then Google will surabaya be out of the pay-per-click business.

ISPs are also not content providers but common carriers.

 
Mitch Wagner
50%
50%
Mitch Wagner,
User Rank: Lightning
5/15/2014 | 1:58:40 PM
Re: What am I missing?
It's clear that there's a great deal of short term profitability potential for carriers making sweetheart deals for their own content and for providers. In the long term, a neutral net makes the Internet more desirable and useful and therefore creates more profitability potential for everyone. 
kq4ym
50%
50%
kq4ym,
User Rank: Light Sabre
5/15/2014 | 1:18:51 PM
Re: What am I missing?
My take on Cohen's comments is that he's trying to be politically correct at the moment, but still leaving the door open for fast lane charges. On one hand he says he's for open internet but on the other says he's waiting on the FCC rulings and Comcast will be entitlted like every other provider to adopt new pricing,
Mitch Wagner
50%
50%
Mitch Wagner,
User Rank: Lightning
5/14/2014 | 7:52:05 PM
What am I missing?
I am hugely suspicious on the subject of net neutrality, but Comcast's proposal seems reasonable. Charge everybody based on usage. As long as everybody's charged the same rate -- but not necessarily the same amount -- then usage-based charges are perfectly fair, reasonable, and preserve competition and openness. 
KBode
50%
50%
KBode,
User Rank: Light Sabre
5/14/2014 | 4:49:14 PM
Cohen
"Cohen said that so far the Atlanta trial has had no effect on about 98% of customers. He also argued that if the model is adopted universally in the future, he believes the same trend would hold true, with very few subscribers needing to pay monthly overage fees for exceeding a capacity threshold."

That would entirely depend on Comcast adjusting its caps to scale with usage demand, though. And since the entire purpose of imposing these caps and meters is to protect TV revenues from Internet video, I have an aching suspicion that won't be happening.
Featured Video
From The Founder
Light Reading founder Steve Saunders grills Cisco's Roland Acra on how he's bringing automation to life inside the data center.
Flash Poll
Upcoming Live Events
February 26-28, 2018, Santa Clara Convention Center, CA
March 20-22, 2018, Denver Marriott Tech Center
April 4, 2018, The Westin Dallas Downtown, Dallas
May 14-17, 2018, Austin Convention Center
All Upcoming Live Events
Infographics
SmartNICs aren't just about achieving scale. They also have a major impact in reducing CAPEX and OPEX requirements.
Hot Topics
Here's Pai in Your Eye
Alan Breznick, Cable/Video Practice Leader, Light Reading, 12/11/2017
Project AirGig Goes Down to Georgia
Dan Jones, Mobile Editor, 12/13/2017
Verizon's New Fios TV Is No More
Mari Silbey, Senior Editor, Cable/Video, 12/12/2017
Ericsson & Samsung to Supply Verizon With Fixed 5G Gear
Dan Jones, Mobile Editor, 12/11/2017
Netflix Evaluating AI for Personalized Trailers
Aditya Kishore, Practice Leader, Video Transformation, Telco Transformation, 12/8/2017
Animals with Phones
Don't Fall Asleep on the Job! Click Here
Live Digital Audio

Understanding the full experience of women in technology requires starting at the collegiate level (or sooner) and studying the technologies women are involved with, company cultures they're part of and personal experiences of individuals.

During this WiC radio show, we will talk with Nicole Engelbert, the director of Research & Analysis for Ovum Technology and a 23-year telecom industry veteran, about her experiences and perspectives on women in tech. Engelbert covers infrastructure, applications and industries for Ovum, but she is also involved in the research firm's higher education team and has helped colleges and universities globally leverage technology as a strategy for improving recruitment, retention and graduation performance.

She will share her unique insight into the collegiate level, where women pursuing engineering and STEM-related degrees is dwindling. Engelbert will also reveal new, original Ovum research on the topics of artificial intelligence, the Internet of Things, security and augmented reality, as well as discuss what each of those technologies might mean for women in our field. As always, we'll also leave plenty of time to answer all your questions live on the air and chat board.

Like Us on Facebook
Twitter Feed